Reddit mentions of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Leonardo

https://www.amazon.com/Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles-Leonardo/dp/B008DBZBUC

I'm 31 now, but I use to play Teenage Muntant Ninja Turtles with my brother and my cousins when I was a kid. My girly cousins and I decided that the turtles were our boyfriends, an idea my brother hated. Donatello was always supposed to be my boyfriend, but I always had a secret love for Leonardo. It would be fun and romantic, (and a little creepy and sad) to finally be reunited with my secret lover.

Edit: Oops forgot to pick a number. I'll pick 31!

SUNDAY FUNDAY! Thanks for the contest!

>Most young children don't watch cartoons, which are more for the 8-12 age group.

Eh, I don't buy that at all.

>I don't entirely understand what you're saying here but the phenomenon of children's cartoons just to advertise toys died ~20-30 years ago.

That's simply not true at all, just recently I noticed it when my little brother watched TV. There is a Nickelodeon Teenage Ninja Turtles show and during the Ads there was a promotion for this: https://www.amazon.com/Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles-Leonardo/dp/B008DBZBUC

What you're saying is simply incorrect so I don't get why you make these statements.

>The way the world works doesn't care how much you have to worry about, what children need for a perfect childhood might be completely impossible to achieve, it wouldn't make it less true if it was too much for you to handle.

Wow, that is a non-statement if I've ever hear one. So because a perfect childhood is impossible to achieve we should not try to strive for optimal results?

>As far as we understand it, biologically speaking, the human brain sees a rendered 3D environment and a real 3D environment the same way. Would you object to children using paper? We already know that a 3D environment is more helpful to learning than a 2D environment or text on a page.

That sentence doesn't mean anything and it wasn't an argument against what I said. The brain does NOT see a 3D simulation the same way as the actual real world, the biggest factor is already that you have to adjust your eyes depending on how far away objects are. Being in an actual 3D environment and interacting with things around you is far more taxing on the brain than staring at a 2dimensional screen that simulates a 3D environment.

>They'll never construct anything meaningful. The early years of child development are for learning and absorption. They don't tend to express themselves meaningfully until around puberty. They'll build and make art and so on, but it won't be very original.

The statement "They'll never construct anything meaningful" is already dangerous because it's such a baseless assumption. A quick Google search shows a lot of examples of kids creating amazing things, see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRZE1SNdj1U

>This is also true for video games. Especially VR and AR.

Okay but instead of letting your kid play real sports, why would you invest hundreds of dollars of machinery to do something that might be similar? I think this discussion is kinda pointless.

>Why? Because they've been around longer?

Because they make you phsyically strong, teach you real life dexterity that doesn't just involve your fingers and learn to handle real life scenarios.

>Regardless of where technology will take us, computers are absolutely full of information to absorb, and it's what children are built for.

>I think this is especially important when they get old enough to actually start taking an interest in particular hobbies. Most teenage girls today probably learned most of how to do their makeup from YouTube. The same is true for a lot of younger people who like to draw, they used online references and tutorials.

Yeah, they will absorb a lot of information but a massive amount of information on the internet is horseshit. If a child searches for basic terms of things he likes he will find videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJqszZw6F6I

And the last thing I want for my teenage daughter is to look up makeup tutorials, telling her what she should look like and what cosmetic products she should buy.

I am not saying technology cannot be useful, but my point is that for (especially younger) kids it is important to restrict what they can and cannot do. The internet allows you to see anything, cartoons, political agendas, porn, gore etc.

Regarding my comment about cartoons, I assumed you were referring to the classic "Saturday Morning Cartoons" as opposed to children's animation in general.

>just recently I noticed it when my little brother watched TV. There is a Nickelodeon Teenage Ninja Turtles show and during the Ads there was a promotion for this: https://www.amazon.com/Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles-Leonardo/dp/B008DBZBUC

The TMNT were conceptualized as a comic book. What I was referring to were shows such as GI Joe and Transformers, which were literally created to be toy advertisements, I wasn't talking about the commercials in between.

>Wow, that is a non-statement if I've ever hear one. So because a perfect childhood is impossible to achieve we should not try to strive for optimal results?

In context you had said you already have enough to worry about, which is where that came from.

>The brain does NOT see a 3D simulation the same way as the actual real world, the biggest factor is already that you have to adjust your eyes depending on how far away objects are.

And yet your brain interprets the image the same.

>Being in an actual 3D environment and interacting with things around you is far more taxing on the brain than staring at a 2dimensional screen that simulates a 3D environment.

Part of how stereoscopic vision functions does that anyway. Human beings can't actually see true 3D at all, it's interpreted by our eyes as a 2D image and we use that input to recreate it as a 3D model in our brain. That's why 2D images work at all.

>The statement "They'll never construct anything meaningful" is already dangerous because it's such a baseless assumption. A quick Google search shows a lot of examples of kids creating amazing things, see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRZE1SNdj1U

Again, in context with what you had said it makes more sense. I said "they'll never construct anything meaningful" not "no child has ever constructed anything meaningful." There's a reason the word "prodigy" is in that title. It's a moot point anyway because there are also children who are unnaturally good at creating in the medium of electronics as well.

>Okay but instead of letting your kid play real sports, why would you invest hundreds of dollars of machinery to do something that might be similar? I think this discussion is kinda pointless.

Okay but instead of letting your kid play games, why would you invest hundreds of thousands of dollars on land titles to do something that might be similar? I think this discussion is kinda pointless.

Nobody's spending hundreds of dollars, nobody's preventing their kid from playing sports. Your point was meritless and disengaged from the actual reality of how raising a child works. My whole point was to let them take interest in what they want.

>Because they make you phsyically strong

Not necessarily. It's much better for cardio than anything else.

>teach you real life dexterity that doesn't just involve your fingers

Most sports do not. There's a reason we consistently use small objects and tools like balls and rackets. Manual dexterity is the primary focus in nearly every sport.

>learn to handle real life scenarios.

This is actually where TV comes ahead. When a parent isn't around to help a child in a new situation they're more likely to develop an unhealthy response, which is why when a child isn't being paid direct attention it's good for them to see what other scenarios can arise and they're shown how to deal with those scenarios by the program. In fact that's one of the primary goals of good children's programming. Have you ever seen Arthur? Nearly every episode had a plot that involved some problem or other a child might encounter while growing up, and the resolution was always when the character being followed owned up and learned about how to responsibly handle the situation. Either that or sometimes when the episode was about a tragedy or a tough situation it was about how to deal with the situation in a more emotional, familial way.

>Yeah, they will absorb a lot of information but a massive amount of information on the internet is horseshit.

That's how the world works. A child who develops with the internet learns to distinguish between what's reliable and what isn't much better than a child who didn't. The vast majority of people who fall for scams or conspiracies on the internet are those who grew up without it, not the other way around.

>And the last thing I want for my teenage daughter is to look up makeup tutorials, telling her what she should look like and what cosmetic products she should buy.

See, this one to me is fundamentally disgusting and ignorant.

Women (or men) who do makeup do it because it's a hobby and it's art. It's not some sort of cosmetic conspiracy to make people feel ugly, it's personal maintenance and a point of pride for those who do it. A girl watching makeup tutorials only ended up there in the first place because she wanted to do her makeup and needed someone to show her how.

>I am not saying technology cannot be useful, but my point is that for (especially younger) kids it is important to restrict what they can and cannot do. The internet allows you to see anything, cartoons, political agendas, porn, gore etc.

And my point is that such restriction when done responsibly should not be in the form of limiting electronics, it should be done internally, being involved in your child's interests and guiding them in the right direction.

You should Turn that frown Upsidedown by starting a TMNT action figure collection if you don't already have them. They're fun! I hope your day gets better. <3